About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
CSPAN 54
LANGUAGE
English 54
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)
. smith: mr. speaker, h.r. 6620, the former presidents protection act of 2012, amends federal law to uniformerly provide lifetime secret service protection to all of america's former presidents. i want to thank the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, for sponsoring this commonsense bipartisan legislation. america has a responsibility to protect its presidents and its families and not simply while they serve in office. we also have a duty to ensure the ongoing safety of those who serve in america's highest elected office after they leave office. in 1958 congress first authorized secret service protection for former presidents, which was limited to a reasonable period of time after a president leaves office. congress expanded this to lifetime protection in 1965. but in 1994, congress once again limited secret service protection for former presidents. this time to 10 years after a president leaves office. this 10-year restriction applied to presidents who took office after january 1, 1997. the role of the former president has changed
attaching it to right of ownership are not simply rights of ownership that are recognized in law, but are the functional equivalent to legal ownership in the event that such illegal status was even legal recognition. the example that is used here is that you cannot own a cocaine, because it is illegal, but in the event that you find it in your possession, you exercise a power attached to the right of ownership over it. on what basis do contemporary practical institutions sufficiently resemble the lived experience of the slave, and in historical terms, that we can legitimately classified them as slavery? we have a legal definition. i want to pretend it is perfect. it is an important starting point that we should use to begin a discussion about what slavery looks like. in addition, and i am going to do this very quickly, we also have overtime a broader series of benchmarks and obligations, which means in the present day, we have limited a reason to extend the slavery rhetorically by the fact that all the things that we might otherwise want to describe as slavery are codified and en
of injuries. in the old law, roughly 20% average annual return on investment. today, 300% sein or more. but sex trafficking, it is more than that -- today, 300% or more. with sex trafficking, it is more than that. today, it could be a year or a couple of years. it is much shorter. centuries ago, you could legally own human beings. today you cannot actually legally own human beings. but people tend to exact the same kind of exploitation regardless. i have already used a lot of terms and had not really told you what they mean. the reason for that is some of these terms, most of them remain unclear. there is debate whether you talk to prosecutors, law enforcement, people in the international arena, as to what slavery means and forced labor and him and trafficking. it depends on your asking and where you are in the world. early definitions of slavery focus on the right of ownership. we are familiar with the 1926 league of nations slavery invented. i have the definitions here. you can look them up on line. basically, focusing on actual power to exert over someone based on owning them. as i
on the bill they just debated, changing federal energy efficiency laws. we'll take you live next to the capital, the chair and co-chair of the democratic caucus, just starting a briefing talking about the fiscal cliff and jobs. it's live here on c-span. >> and continues to preach the kind of message that i think the nation needs, one of compromise but one of assurity that we are going to be looking out tore the interest of the middle class and the protection of social security, medicare and medicaid for the people who are in such desperate need of those great programs that are the hallmark of our country. we have repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of hav
a skilled work force. -- that is what grows the economy. how do we get there? first of law, we need to get -- how do we get them? -- how do we get there? we can have a serious discussion once we get republicans to agree we are not going to end medicare as we know it. once we get that agreement the we will meet our promise to our seniors now and in the future -- we are not going to cut benefits or shift the costs to individual seniors and their families, we are not going to kick people out of nursing homes, which is medicaid, then we can have a serious discussion about how you create that sustainability. >> they seem to have taken those off the table. >> yes and no. they are saying we can cut $400 billion from medicare in the right where and $200 billion out of medicaid. let's have a discussion. the most chronically ill people need to get the health care they need in the most cost-efficient way. that they have health coverage over their lives. that can make a big difference in medicare going forward. there are a lot of cuts coming out of discretionary spending. a lot of those on health prog
of the land. >> when i hear these accusations of black people, boehner i.t. loss -- voter id laws, disproportionately affected minorities, it seems that we are <. today, the white americans can get ids to vote, and go through all the prophecies -- processes, what are you telling black people? that is what bothers me about a lot -- about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats, that we have to make special -- there has to be a specialness when we deal with minorities because they're too feeble- minded. we need to make concessions for them because they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, then i do not think they want to aspire. >> more with the editor and publisher of conservative blackchick.com. sunday night at 8:00 on a c- span2 "-- c-span2 n/a." "q +a."'s this forum about modern-day slavery was part of an international conference hosted by yale university. [applause] >> good morning. what a full room. i get you first thing in the morning, so hopefully your minds are fresh and excited for the day. i am really delighted to be here to
of the law of the land. when i hear these accusations that black people and voter i.d. laws disproportionately affect minorities, it applies -- it implies we have something missing in our brand. if white americans can get all the processes to follow the law, what are you telling lack people? that they are not good enough? that is what bothers me a lot about the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. there has to be something special when we deal with minorities because they are to feeble minded because they cannot follow the rules like everyone else. when you treat everyone like victims, i do not think they will aspire. >> more with the publisher of conservativeblackchick.com tonight. >> now , a debate on elections in muslim countries following the arab spring. this was part of a daylong forum hosted by the tens of democracies. this is just over one hour. >> good morning everyone. thank you, bob, for that introduction and thank you all of you for coming out early this morning for what i think will be a lively debate. we are going to be asking the question if democracy
election. it would be nicer to get rid of it altogether. it is anachronistic law that is a problem. it creates a great deal of uncertainty. as you can see, it can do a lot of damage to the economy. there are a lot of reasons why it is being considered to eliminate that ceiling. it should be carefully considered. at the very minimum, we should push this to the other side of the election. we do not want to address the debt ceiling on a regular basis. it is damaging confidence. on fiscal sustainability, we need deficit reduction in the next 10 years of about $3 trillion. to get there, a balanced approach would be $1.4 trillion in tax revenue. half of that would come through tax reform and the other half through higher tax rates. $1.2 trillion in cuts to programs -- medicare and medicaid, social security, and other budget items -- that would leave you with approximately $400 billion in interest savings. at all of that together and you get $3 trillion. the spending cuts were implemented as part of the budget control act. if you add all of it up, if you go down the path i articulated, th
about my pal. when he came into the senate, i had heard of him. my law partner, bob ranck, was a heavyweight champion from wisconsin university. i said this guy was the light heavyweight champion from syracuse, which he was. anyway, he came in and i said, remember bob? heavyweight champion from wisconsin when you were on the team in syracuse? he said, what a left hook. that is what he said. he could knock people out with that thing. people thought he was right- handed and then he would plow them with that. many news in and outside of the senate. public interest groups and campaign reform -- it was always about friendship and trust. trust is what is missing in this place. the point of trust is the coin of the realm, and the point of trust is severely tarnished. it is easy to see and it is very sad to those of us who are here. he was a remarkable kind of a guy. loved to to fight, especially -- remember those puffing noises he used to make? [laughter] it was usually after a cigarette he had snatched out in the hall. still smoking those things? he said, shut up. then he would
-- >> let me finish. you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court as the law of the lan. >> when i hear these accusations that black people, voter id l affectproportionately minorities, -- to me if white americans can get id's to vote and to the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? they are lesser then? that is what bothers me about the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. that we always have to make special -- to ask to be a specialist -- specialness but we deal with minorities because they are two people minded. we have to make concessions for them because they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, i do not think they want to inspire. >> more with the editor and publisher of conservative black chick.com, sunday night at 8:00 on q&a. next, house budget committee ranking democrat chris van hollen, a tennessee republican bob corker and other members of congress talking about this fiscal cliff. hosted by bloomberg government and the lloyd. this is about an hour. -- and del
in undergraduate hours, law school, or high school. i have learned more about history, government, the true history of this country. not what we have been spoonfed in high school. or in critical about the pleasant stories where we were happy with smiles on their face. where we have come from and how far we have come and how far we can go in terms of really being that bright and shining lfght for other countries to follow by example. host: is that it? caller: please, please, is there some way we can make texas c- span? they will not go on tv for people who are on satellite. we are bleeding republicans in this state with these voting machines. texas used to be such a good state to be from. host: what do you mean, make texas c-span? caller: i would like to see a c- span texas. i bet there are a lot of people and a lot of states that would like to see that. host: your earlier comments, can we use those for a commercial? thank you for calling in this morning. here is more facebook comments on our question this morning. keenan says -- john says -- sal says -- and ruben says -- don from book raton, hi, do
the gramm-rudman deficit law, which was so important at the time. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician, and he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. [laughter] we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second. fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good, he had the courage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate with talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he also expressed his hope for the future of the senate, saying it is a very special place with very special people. i hope in the coming years that the inst
requirements. under current law, financial institutions are required to provide annual privacy is notices that the explain their practices. they are required to mail those notices regardless of whether or not that information sharing practice has changed. these annual mailings cost millions each year and do not provide the consumers with new information if the practice hasn't change thsmed will require an institution to provide annual privacy notices only if they have changed their privacy rules. this will eliminate an unnecessary burden for our financial institutions. i would like to thank mr. luetkemeyer and mr. sherman for their leadership on this issue and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: i thank the gentlelady from west virginia for yielding to me and i yield myself such time as i may consume in support of h.r. 5817, the eliminate privacy notify -- notice confusion act. i want to thank representative luetkemeyer for his work in introducing this bill. i've enjoyed working with him on it. mr. -- ms. speak
in the courthouse when d.n.a. started coming into be used at the courthouse. prior to that many law enforcement and prosecutors had to rely on blood samples and fingerprints, but once d.n.a. came in and we learned everybody has a unique genetic makeup and it can be connected and traced to perpetrators of crime when they commit a crime, especially in sexual assault cases. and convictions have gone up. the evidence is better. the proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much more available in d.n.a. cases. in 1985, there was a 13-year-old girl named lavenia masters. she lived in dallas, texas. she told her folks good night. she went to her bedroom which should be, mr. speaker, the safest place on earth for children -- went to sleep and during the middle of the night she was woken up by an outlaw putting a knife to her throat and he sexually assaulted her. then he snuck away in the darkness of the night. that was in 1985. she went to the hospital. her parents took care of her medical needs. d.n.a. evidence was taken from her. it was given to the law enforcement authorities, but that d.n.a. evidence from
people, voter i.d. laws a disproportionately affect us. if white people can go through all the laws, what are you telling back people? they are less than? that is what bothers me about rhetoric. we always have to make special --there has to be a specialist when we deal with minorities. it there too feeble mind it appeared we need to make concessions. they cannot follow the rules. we treat people like victims, i do not think they want to aspire. >> defense secretary leon panetta visited the walter reed medical center tuesday to celebrate the hospital's first anniversary. it was created out of the merger of the walter reed army medical center and the bethesda naval hospital. this is about 40 minutes. >> it is my true pleasure to welcome me here this morning. over a year ago to host a dedication ceremony for what was then the new walter reed medical center. you are words that many of us that day. he pointed out if his the people that can make the biggest difference. -- he pointed out that it is the people that can make the biggest difference. i would be happy to report to you that we stand b
are potential legal challenges associated with state and federal environmental laws and acquiring necessary right- of-way acquisition. this concludes my statement. i would be pleased to answer any questions you and other members of the committee might have. >> thank you secretary of transportation from washington, 5 minutes. >> thank you. this is an important hearing to think about not only lessons learned through the development and implementation of a high- speed rail program but looking forward to reauthorization. states responsible for delivering an operating the real systems in our state are committed to continue a real program of this time. passenger rail has been in place since 1994 we have partnered from the state level with amtrak and in our state in a collaborative approach to an incremental delivery of high and higher speed real programs and service. we see the implementation of a national vision as an important part of what we are trying to deliver. we have a corridor between eugene, oregon, and vancouver, british columbia. we have achieved in the last year up to 880,000 passeng
americans can get it to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not able to? they are lesser the man? that is what bothers me about the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. there has to be a specialness when we deal with minorities because they are too feeble minded. we really need to make concessions for them because they can follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, then i don't think they want to aspire. >> the editor and publisher of conservativeblackchick.com, krystle wright, sunday on q&a. president obama and his family took part in the national tree lighting ceremony. the ceremony started with calvin coolidge. here are highlights from the event held at the national mall. ♪ ♪ [applause] >> merry christmas, everybody! >> merry christmas! >> it is great to see you all. happy holidays. happy holidays, mr. president. >> is it time? i think it's time. >> for the big button. >> i hope everybody is ready. [cheering] >> we have to do the countdown. starting with five -- 5, 4,
in the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. colorado law makers from the house and senate took part in the event. this is 30 minutes. >> good evening everyone and welcome to the 48th annual united states capitol christmas tree lighting ceremony. i'm the architect of the capitol and i'm honored to serve as your master of ceremonies tonight as we carry out this wonderful tradition this year. for everyone's safety we ask you stay in your seats until the conclusion of this evening's program. >> every year, i look forward to this event to officially kick off the holiday season here on capitol hill. and even though the weather doesn't feel like it's december 4, nothing says christmas like the playing of festive holiday carols. i would like to extend a special thank you to the united states air force band under the direction of peter foliard and created this great and festive holiday mood. let's give them a hand, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [applause] >> and behind me stands the u.s. capitol's christmas tree, a majestic 73-foot spruce from colorado's white river national forest. [appl
to take these young women when they are interacting with law enforcement because a lot of them find themselves into prostitution and get treated like perpetrators as opposed to victims. this is the psychology of a perpetrator but they are victims and we have to get law enforcement and our judicial system to treat these women as victims and put them in a setting to pull themselves away from drug addition. >> in a minute, politico is -- politico is going to ask you some questions. one of the questions that has come in, who is the best leader in washington, d.c.? >> robert griffin, iii. >> why did the majority of americans reject the republican party in the recent election? >> it was an election and it was a very close election. if you look at the nims and the differences between the two. i think the republican party can do a better job of limited government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. t
for energy information. we are by law -- it is supposed to be unbiased and neutral in our development of energy analysis, using the debt that we collect -- data that we collect. the annual energy outlook reference case, which were published today, is not really a forecast as it is a baseline. it is built on the idea of existing law and regulation so that the public and policymakers can compare what new laws and regulations or changes in world events might mean to our baseline. host: frank verrastro doggett is vice president of the energy program at the nonprofit center for strategic and international studies. who uses these eia projections? guest: the data sets the reference cases. they're not really pinpoints, because nobody gets 24 the right. but the trends are really important -- 2040 right. but the trends are really important. agencies around the world, universities, financial analysts on wall street, everyone uses these kinds of reports to look at what the forecast on this change in energy landscape looks like. host: we are taking your calls and questions for both mr. for siemins
said in a law that they would pay that money back in a trust fund. but there is suspicion on whether that is rarely ever going to happen. that feeds into their concern about what will happen to social security. is it going to be changed in ways that affect the benefits? host: all of the calls to simplify the tax code, to streamline it, and that may certainly mean to itemize the credits of that take place on the tax returns. guest: the complexity of the tax system is a huge problem. everyone from the irs on down to congress and the industry out there, if you will, the financial accounting industry, everyone recognizes is an enormous problem and causes people to pay a lot more than they otherwise would. most people do not do their own taxes anymore because they are so complex. they rely on software that is kind of a black box. it is hard to know how the tax system works anymore. people do not have as much of an incentive to take a deduction if they do not know it is there. and the software is what they are depending on. host: does simplifying the tax code as necessarily mean lessening
different laws than we do. if there say technology drain, it's also in terms of the u.s. laws we only prohibit certain type of technology that has to do with national security and technology. but when you talk in steve's case the talent of the invite tive things that get sucked out along with that, that's nobody really talks about that so i'd like to hear from you. >> it's true. what you are saying is true. it goes back to what i was saying the other countries are being a magnet for talent, there is no question about this so we have to recognize that is happening and make sure we're competitive. my own view is if people want to come here and get an education and go back to their country, fine, that is a way to build stronger committees in other parts of the world. that is part of our stated policy. having people come here if they want to go back and start companies there, that's fine. but we should at least give them the option of staying here. if they want to go back fine, but don't force them. encourage them to stay because we need smart people here working on these new technologies
. that is what law says must happen unless we reform it. i think that is a terrible way to run a public pension program. it should have reforms. the last such reforms that have been suggested, i would be happy with any of them. there is a set of leaders and social security that is not complicated that can be done and should be done. that would be the best thing for social security. host: thank you for being on c- span. palm beach, fla., in the and the blind -- -- on the independent line -- caller: as an independent, i am starting to form an opinion that if president obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff, it appears that way, because he has had no credible counteroffer. he says i will give you cuts in the future but he is not specific. his speeches are always peppered with we have to invest. he does not mean in the private sector. he wants more the firefighters, teachers, policemen. this adds to the public debt. we are borrowing, from what i read yesterday, 46 cents on every dollar. that appears to me to be untenable. i am no fan of john boehner but he makes an offer that got him in touch with
misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people -- voter i.d. laws disproportionately affect minorities -- it seems to me somehow we have something missing in our brain. to me, if white americans can go throughto voting all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left, that we always have to make special -- you know, there has to be a specialness when we deal with minorities because they are too feeble mind it. we really need to make concessions for them because they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, then i do not think they want to aspire. >> more with the editor and publisher of conservativeblackchick.com on c- span's "q&a." >> business, political, and senior military leaders talked about alternative energy production and the country's dependence on oil. speakers included gene sperling, director of the white house international c
, the broad context. we need to get rid of the debt ceiling law. it is agonistic. -- it is anachronistic. we need to get rid of it. i suggest that some version of the dollar for dollar rule should be incremented. at least considered. it does not need to be one-for- one. it could be 50%. that is not going forward. -- that is now going forward. my view is that we need to nail down how we can get to fiscal sustainability. -- the $3 trillion i proposed,get rid of the debt ceiling law. we need some form of budget rule to make sure that some discipline going toward. >> structure. >> yes, structure. we need to show people that we will stick to this plan. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for being here. i appreciate your testimony. dr. hassett, dr. zandi has indicated that he inks the debt limit crisis we had in august 2011 was bad for the economy and the country and that we should avoid it for the future. do you agree with that? >> first, yes. i think the best testament of this has been done by co- authors who have a very cool index of economic uncertainty. it is a very innovative paper. they e
:30 a.m. >> washbourne went to harvard law school. he emigrated out west to illinois where the lead mine industry was in its heyday. he arrived after a month's journey by ship, by stagecoach, by train, and arrived in this muddy mining town, boarded himself in a log cabin, established a look -- law practice. he worked his way up and became a successful lawyer. he got involved politically, ran for congress. served for eight terms. he befriended abraham lincoln and you sillies s. gragrant. washbourne was a close confidante. after grant was elected president, he appointed washbou rne secretary of state. washbourne became ill. his family felt for his life -- there for his life. he submitted his resignation. grant accepted his resignation. over the next couple of months, he regained his health, which was always fragile. grant offered him the position as minister of france and ambassador. >> michael hill, elihu washbourne. the only diplomat from a major power to stay during the siege of paris. son and 9:00. >> first lady mr. obama welcome to military families to the white house for this season'
said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. we always have to make -- there has to be a special mass when we deal with minorities because they are too feeble minded. we really need to make concessions for them because they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, i do not think they want to ask bair. wright, ith crystal righ sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> they both -- politicians from both sides said they would be able to avoid the fiscal cliff. this included chris van hollen. also, senators mark warner and bob corker, a republican from tennessee. this is one hour. >> good morning. i'm the head of bloo
of the appropriations and budget committee. also joined by georgetown university tax law professor john buckley on how the alternative minimum tax is affecting fiscal negotiations. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: 25 days to go before the united states faces the fiscal cliff, the white house has rejected a proposal from house republicans to prevent tax hikes and spending cuts at the end of the year. no formal talks between the two sides are scheduled today. will go outside the nation's capital to get your voice involved. republicans -- democrats -- independents -- send us a tweet, post your comments on facebook, or send us an e-mail. we begin with some of the papers across the country today and how this latest proposal from house republicans is playing out in the papers. courtesy of "the atlantic journal-constitution" -- here is "the denver post" -- finally, here is "of the arizona republic" -- here is "the washington post" on what is inside this deal -- we want to get your take on this. what do you think? ted in new york, a democratic caller. what do you think? caller: good morning. i do n
, dividends. current laws, they go back up. dividends treated as ordinary income. capital gains goes back up to 20%. how much revenue are we talking about? if those become bargaining chips, how much are we giving up? >> under current law, the capital gains rate is scheduled to go to 20%. we are actually talking 23.8%. dividends are scheduled to go to ordinary rates. you need the 3.8% for people who have higher incomes. significant increases in both are scheduled. as you think about the fiscal cliff and what is coming, one of the few places you can see people responding to it is in their behavior around capital gains and dividends. companies are moving up to how, shareholders take a vintage of a lower rate. i expect you will see more investors realize lower capital gains in order to get lower rates. there is clearly money there. there is clearly money that has interesting, distributional characteristics. as you think about the political process trying to structure when a package with a revenue goal and a distribution goal, my prediction is you will see at least some of those increases occur.
be nicer to get rid of it altogether. it is anachronistic law that is a problem. it creates a great deal of uncertainty. as you can see, it can do a lot of damage to the economy. there are a lot of reasons why it is being considered to eliminate that ceiling. it should be carefully considered. at the very minimum, we should push this to the other side of the election. we do not want to address the debt ceiling on a regular basis. it is damaging confidence. on fiscal sustainability, we need deficit reduction in the next 10 years of about $3 trillion. to get there, a balanced approach would be $1.4 trillion in tax revenue. half of that would come through tax reform and the other half through higher tax rates. $1.2 trillion in cuts to programs -- medicare and medicaid, social security, and other budget items -- that would leave you with approximately $400 billion in interest savings. at all of that together and you get $3 trillion. the spending cuts were implemented as part of the budget control act. if you add all of it up, if you go down the path i articulated, the spending cuts would be
in law that would help us avoid the kind of obstruction and the kind of showdowns we have had in the past over the debt ceiling. in fact, the idea was not new. it was his original idea that has been the law of the land that followed. and he offered and challenged senator reid to bring this matter for consideration by the senate. he said he would bring this to a vote in 20 minutes. and we would decide up or down whether the debt ceiling problem would be resolved once and for all under senator mcconnell proposal. and then senator mcconnell objected, say, no, no, we need 60 votes. for those who do not follow the senate, 60 votes is equivalent to a filibuster vote. so this may be a moment in senate history when a senator made a proposal, and when given a opportunity for a vote, he filibustered his own proposal. i think we have reached a new spot in the history of the senate we have never seen before. i will ask a parliamentarian to really look into this. i don't think this has ever happened before. but this calls into question if this was a kind of offer that would consider to be good faith.
% was still sitting in washington. we have to change the law. there's some things express and the government accountability report on the selection of some of these projects. their release this march of 2011. specifically at -- bay released this march of 2011. specifically they said there were concerns about transparency and other issues with it. they cannot verify some of the criteria by which some of these projects were selected. can you cite any improvement in that process? you were citing a number of projects but also criticized by gao for the process. >> we tried to improve our decision making process. we have tried to use the governors as our partners on these projects. receiving proposals from them and from the state's and working with them -- states and working with them. try to improve our process for selecting projects. >> the other most recent report by the inspector general, released just weeks ago, saidmber 11, 2000112, it they raised concerns about the management framework and the stakeholder agreement process. would you like to comment regarding their criticisms? >> when this
a multiplier effect. host: this is from the national employment law project. estimates of numbers of people who will be affected if the program ends. 2 million workers collecting insurance will be cut off after payments for the week ended december 29. nearly 1 million more workers will run out of state unemployment benefits without access to the euc by the end of the first quarter of 2013. tickets for those numbers a little bit and specifically the one a million more workers. guest: there are two fundamental programs part of the extension. the important thing about them, this is what really counts in this, they provide the additional benefits passed the six months the market. if workers do not get the additional benefits, they are possibly forced onto other kind of government programs like welfare. that creates additional cost for the government. that is one important consideration to make. over the course of the year, as many as 10 million americans get on unemployment. that is a pretty sizable chunk. we will see cycled through. right now about 40% of unemployed americans have been unemployed
different laws than we do. my question is if there is a technology drain, in terms of the u.s. laws, we only prohibit certain types of technology that has to do with national security and technology, but when you talk about in steve's case, it innovative things that are basically getting sucked out all along with that, nobody really talks about that. so i would like to hear from you. >> it is true. exactly what you are saying is true. other countries are stepping up their efforts to be a magnet for talent. some of it is professors, some of it is researchers, and there is no doubt. we just have to make sure we are aware of that. people want to come here and get an education and want to go back to their country, fine. it is a way to build centers of innovation and entrepreneurship in other parts of the world. that is actually part of our state department stated policy. having people come here, if they want to go back and start companies there, that is fine. but we should at least give them the option of staying year. if they want to go back, fine. but do not make them go back. people staying y
communities apart. this was so obvious to everyone that when we reform welfare in the 1990's, a law was passed by a republican congress and signed by a democratic president. what happened? welfare enrollment dropped dramatically. millions of people gained new lives of independence. poverty rates for children fell over 20% in four years. more single moms found jobs. your welfare checks going out and more money for states to spend on child care so more moms could go to work and support themselves. welfare reform worked because it encouraged the best in people. it appealed to their desire to shape their own destiny. it helped get government out of the business of fostering dependency. here is the problem. we have not applied a welfare reform mindset with equal vigor across programs. in most cases, we are still trying to measure compassion by how much spend cannot how many we help. last year, spending on programs came over $1 trillion. what does that mean in practical terms? for that amount of money, you could give every single poor american a check for $22,000. instead, we just spent all of that
. it is the only reason i was able federal grants and loans. when i graduate from law school, i had close to $150,000 in student debt. that is a debt i paid off last year. i was able to help pay it off amazon. [applause] >> pell grant system -- let's make sure parents and students understand how long it will take them to complete the education, the likelihood of completion, make after graduation, and how much their monthly loan will be. it now is the time to be creative and daring and class. beyond education, paul touched on this and i want to reemphasize, but beyond education, there's another obstacle that is keeping too many young americans from moving ahead. many of them do not have the middle-class job. it is because they grew up in an unstable home environment. they grew up in dangerous neighborhoods with no access to healthcare. single parents and sometimes an elderly grandmother. they may not have a chance to participate in afterschool are working and cannot pick them up. every day some amazing parent or caretaker is of her, and all of it to give these kids a chance at a better life. consi
arena is so important. we saw it in new orleans after katrina. but we lost technology, we lost law and order. technology is a huge benefit of a huge risk. there are so many people who want to say kids cannot learn. some kids just cannot learn. so i would say do we really believe kids cannot learn? are there not opportunities for kids got to mark isn't our security -- for kids? when are we going to connect the dots? when are we going to break this system down and this mentality? i am excited because governor bush brings us together once a year to reflect on this and we get to hear people like you help us understand. please, help me understand. how to be connect the dots? -- how do we connect the dots? >> you are a man who did precisely that. you would not have the recovery school district, the results he had. you talk about ideas and people. asked about ideas. let me tell you, as important as ideas are, there are billions of ideas out there. in the hands of weak leaders and people who cannot execute, bad ideas and up on the cutting room floor. i have been waiting all day to say this
code book on disabilities. not going tos it's change the laws, and he is lying. host: you're talking about yesterday's debate in the senate. caller: exactly. i wish he would be as passionate about try to get people on the west coast back to work. if they would work as hard on that as the disabilities act, this country would not have the fiscal cliff because people would be working. everybody is always trying to blame the tea party. but tea party did not put this country in debt. but the party is trying to bring it to the attention of the people that these entitlements cannot be afforded any more. it is like your charge card. if you keep charging and taking and taking, pretty soon you have to pay it back. that is what is going on with this fiscal cliff. it's time to pay. it's not the republican party's fault. obama has been in office four years. he has doubled to the trillions of dollars in debt. host: are you a tea party supporter? caller: i'm not affiliated with the tea party, but i am tired of hearing them blame it, because i see the hard-working generation that are in their 60s th
they say, well, our property, our cars, our technology wears out faster. guest: the current law is not correct. and this has to do with the retailers and the restaurants. their provision is that they get to deduct their property over 15 years instead of over 39 years. and they say, you know, 39 years is unrealistic and 15 years is more on money. host: how long you have been writing about taxes? guest: i've been write being taxes for maybe five years. host: how much do you think you know about the u.s. tax code? guest: not so much. i mean, like, i talk to tax experts, people with law degrees. and they probably know a lot about one part of the tax code. so, there are only like a few people i know who just have an encyclopedic knowledge about the entire thing who could say, in section 140-c-34 -- so those are very few and far between. i know more than many people. host: if somebody sat you down and said, write a book about the u.s. tax code -- guest: i could probably write about it in a more entertaining way. that's why i'm here to sort of bridge the gap between the tax nerds who k
on sharia law. it is by its very nature anti-west, anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-peace. it's interests are opposite to ours. this is islamism, it is the opposite of democracy. democracy -- people are the source of legitimacy. periodic elections to choose one's representatives. the idea that the political minority can eventually become the majority. respect for certain rights. protection for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. protection that goes beyond tolerance and of course the rule of law, the respect for a judiciary that is independent. today's debate is simple. we aren't asking whether they can be good muslims and good democrats, the answer to that is yes. but can islammists be democrat. can advocates of the ideology of fundamentalism lead their countries to democracy? the answer is an obvious no. our answer is grounded inexperience and fact. their answer is grounded in hope and assertion. we have experiences, iran, gaza, sudan, lebanon, turkey, in none of these countries have the attributes of democracy occurred when islammists were in power. rights are re
will hear. it gives a little bit of the text put into place when it was signed into law. this is part of section 7. and determining the ruling regulation of the bureau and agencies of the united states, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the words bouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. one of looking at a state militia and the other looking at a federal issue, two cases, and a decision expected by june. if you want to wait and, the numbers are on your screen. -- if you want to weigh in, the numbers are on your screen. tweets.also send us tweak this is from "the washington post." the phone lines will remain on your screen. out of georgia on the democrat line. good morning. >> thank you it. i would like to say, i do not believe the in gay marriage. but i believe everyone should have the right to practice their religion and love how the 12. these right-wingers -- there are a lot of democrats that did not believe in gay marriage, but we do not believe we should be able to stop anyone from m
. then it sprang back to life as part of the extension of the bush tax cuts that president obama signed into law. you have a debate -- very few members dispute that it needs to be continued. the debate is over whether you continue it at the current level. there is an exemption level, $10 million for a couple. or at the white house would prefer a 45% rate. that is the debate right now. there's a split among democrats. the white house wants a less generous estate tax. red-leaning states like max baucus. host: that was the headline recently in "the wall street journal," showing the senators. at its highest, what was the estate tax? how many people did the estate tax affect? guest: we are talking tens of thousands. right now it affects 3000 estates. the exemption level is set high historical novel. it has come down significantly. big argument from conservatives is it hits small businesses and farms. the number a hits is a small fraction. host: if nothing happens, what happens to the estate tax? guest: then it goes back to the levels of an exemption of $1 million. host: and that could hit about 55,00
comments and hold town halls. it informs iacc recommendations. it is a committed group. while the law requires two meetings a year, they may need as many as 17 times a year. the law charged it with a strategic plan annually. we are drafting as always with autism committee influence an update to reflect the latest aspects in what is a research -- in autism research. over the past decade, research funding has grown substantially. investing $169 million in just the year 2011, three times more than 10 years ago. in 2009 and 2010, 120 two million dollars in an additional american recovery and investment act funds were also presented. as congress has emphasized, early diagnosis and and prevention is critical. these earliest changes ever recorded was six months and a number recent findings suggest that the factors causing it may operate very early in development. last year, researchers demonstrated that doctors often have a short questionnaire to screen inexpensive way in a child visit. another promising diagnostic tool is i gazed patterns specific to what is of -- is eye gaze patterns speci
extended all of those changes in 2010. that's the law of the land still today. tax policy has been exactly the same over this continuum. what has changed, mr. speaker, what has changed is the spending. the reason deficits have grown not one, not two, not three but almost four times larger than the previous record deficit in american history is not because tax policy has changed, it hasn't. it's because federal spending policy has changed. and that's what we have to get our arms around here in this body. what i show going forward, mr. speaker, put a little square around the annual budget deficits that have been run during the first four years of the obama administration, but i also project what the congressional budget office believes, that's a nonpartisan budget planning group we have here on capitol hill, what they believe is in store for us in the future if we continue under current policy. -h tsh-that's trillion dollar deficits going out for years to come. the problem is not tax policy, mr. speaker, the problem is spending policy. can we improve tax policy? you better believe it. mr. sp
.d. laws disproportionately affecting minorities, it applies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. white americans can and get i.d.'d to vote and can follow the laws, so what are you telling what people? they're not good enough? this is what bothers me about a lot of rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. we always have to make a specialness when we deal with minorities because they are too feeble minded. we have to make concessions because they cannot follow the rules. when you treat people like it does, i do not think they want to inspire. >> the editor of conservative black chick.com, crystal wright. >> editors say hurricane a sandy caused $5 billion to four infrastructure -- -- poor infrastructure damage in their state. >> good morning. i welcome everyone to today's hearing which have called to address the devastating impact that super-storm sandy had a run -- had on our regional transportation, the most widely new transportation network and unprecedented damage to our system and estimates of the damage have reached more than an $7 billion. across the regent
, -- voter id laws disproportionately affect minorities. if whites voters can it -- get people,u telling black that they are less than? we always have to make special -- there has to be a specialnes when we deals with minorities because they are too feeble mind. when you treat people like the victims, i do not think they want to aspire. >> crystal wright tonight at 8 ." c-span's "q & a today, the latest on the
governors have changed some laws and angered some of the democratic base. if not, what is it? >> let's look at some of those races. let's take michigan as an example because it has been in the press. here is the state that produces the automobiles for america that without president obama and the bailout of the auto industry, probably wouldn't in business right now. you've got to governor down there instituting right to work policies that are against the interests of 30% of every living person in michigan. 30% of the residents in michigan live in a family that is associated with a labor union. instead, they focus on taking away women's rights, standing for the most extreme lmentses of the tea party that got rejected in this last election. my point is this, huge opportunities for democratic governors in those states to point out and make sure that we have governors who are focused on balanced budgets and creating jobs not standing in the way of women rights, minority rights, and all the other areas of social radical right politics that is defined if republican party an republican governors in
in this country, it would be a crime and a violation of our antitrust laws. so the prescription that the energy security leadership council came up with several years ago, which was very impactful in the energy security -- independence and security act of 2007, was it? 2008? was based on our report in 2007, which said that the united states should maximize its oil and gas production, that it should significantly reduce consumption and improve conservation, which led to the direct support of the eslc for the -- from the eslc for the re-substitution of fuel efficiency standards, which had not been done for 20 years and third, to develop to the extent that it was economically viable, a biofuel substitute for petroleum. this new report that we're releasing today continues these themes with a couple of important caveats. the most important is the fantastic technical revolution that has taken place since our original report and our intermediate reports until this one today by the so-called fracking revolution for oil and gas. and at the same time the significant improvement in national efficiency tha
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)